Breathalyzer Source Code Ruling Upheld

dfn_deux writes "In a follow up to a 2005 story where Florida judge Doug Henderson ruled that breathalyzer evidence in more than 100 drunk driving cases would be inadmissible as evidence at trial, the Second District Court of Appeal and Circuit Court has ruled on Tuesday to uphold the 2005 ruling requiring the manufacturer of the Intoxilyzer 5000, Kentucky-based CMI Inc, to release source code for their breathalyzer equipment to be examined by witnesses for the defense of those standing trial with breathalyzer test result being used as evidence against them. '"The defendant's right to a fair trial outweighed the manufacturer's claim of a trade secret," Henderson said Tuesday. In response to the ruling defense attorney, Mark Lipinski, who represents seven defendants challenging the source codes, said the state likely will be forced to reduce charges — or drop the cases entirely.' ... What this really means is that outside corporations cannot sell equipment to the state of Florida and expect to hide the workings of their machine by saying they are trade secret. It means the state has to give full disclosure concerning important and critical aspects of the case."

Comments

Re:Good luck with that!

[smooth wombat]

but don't take the blood or the piss test(they can't legally make you)

In most states, if you refuse an on-the-spot breathalyzer test, that is an admission of guilt which automatically triggers penalties. Every state has its own laws regarding what happens if someone refuses with most states now revoking your license, fining you and giving you points on your license (which increases your insurance rates).

Here's a breakdown of PA's DUI laws.

But please, let's not get drunk drivers off the road. We need as many as possible out and about to cull the herd.